i xx TEE HIGH coax? or Kamnamnxa Am Haneaxafisfg". gamma wars wan 11"'DA$ 09 AUGUST, éfics "' PREsENw ="*-- _ ' ;u u xx ms now 51.2: mi. JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR.' Ju's1*;;§::iER:A'2§_.;*%_V,L Pficfiaaguxéfl BETWEEN: _ A,Hig». V: 'V 1.
The Cammiabiénér éf In¢q$e¢féi;”‘
C.R.Bu1;¢ing{gA¢tavfa,’5’=
M=a119=vIlo:£-av» =
2 . The {3é15u’tyVif,Coazi§Li’::si:;;iex cf
IncdmeeTax'{Aa$tq};_”z *-
Special’ Range ‘, .’ , F. 1.33″-uAT.,1.–ding ,
Attav:a,,Mangal¢re}g .. APPELLANTS
(By»advo&a:¢”Sri@M.V.Seshachala}
V°ws Ma@gaiaée_i11es Ltd.,
UdQiVBi$t~§?6 201. .. RESPOfiDENT
(By. Jidvocate Sri . S. P . Bhat)
I.T..A. is filed under Sac.260B. of The
‘E:;c;¢ma Tax Act: to allow the appeal and set aside
the’ orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate
yV”V’A».£L’z.*:i.buz:al, Bangalore in XTA 160.335/Bang/’2000 dated
2
l9.12.2fJ£33 ccnjfinning the order of the
Cmtmissicmer and confimuad the order _._the
Joint; Comzniasionex of Incozrae Tax {Asaut:’;)
Range , Mangalore .
This Appeal is cc>m1.Tng:.Jonb”‘f::l: ‘. ‘
this day, Mmnavnnsn J. delivered tha £n11qwinga_”c
-3 U 1:>._9,.;y§~;_§i«_%11w$ . A
This appeal 1.3 tkfi, cha.il;énq1ng the
ccncxuxxent fmnciings of Im::.ome-
Tax (Appeala; tgge by the Ine:c:sme–
Tax Appéii@t§” ifri5@fia;;. Eanga1ore, in IIA
go.aasiééhgzéqaofigggggfzy.iéiéooa.
2. Emé =:Eé.c:t.s ‘«:.’af”‘ are as hereunder:
;’1’i’.va assesééé 1.3 a. znanufacturezr of tiles and
a’r.1f.d;g:a5 the assessee is having few lorries.
depreciation at the rate cf 40% on
thé.__ owned by it on the grounci that the
‘,.fI.o1:3:ie”3 1:a.re eaxning incomne since the aasessee is
than: can ‘hire ha.-5.1.5 far the purpcme of
tfianspcrtation. The assessing officer having
fv’
zioticeci that than lorries in question are
5
Comnissioner of Income-‘fax (Appeals) as woii
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
depreciation at the rate of:-I “a’m–3_ it
submits that whethex: there wot;
from transport business Visit
a question of fact fand a.fi’1tho;tiVtiiea have
ooxzcurrently held V * the assesses;
tharefoxe he ::u}’.vnexnit:.’§~ ‘intention
of law
6. 8a:::ingf’hoai3é:ii:§£.V.th§aV–._oounse3f for the parties and
on peifisal’ it is noticed by us that
\»’
before tiheét ‘officer assessoe did not
prodxioé ma’.te.x-.1′..a..3.s to show what was total.
.:eoéived by the assessee from transport
ibxxeiinoiiesafi :”E1oxmL:.asioner of Income-EI.’a.x (Appeals)
witizoutv’ the same, aoleiy relying upon the
agmual-V__:r:aintena;:ce of lorries and the receipt
1fxi3?_§b–‘ Chaxgea has come to the conclusion that the
V aéseaaee is engaged in transportation business. We
have coxwareci total receipts fzcom the transport
I9»
‘?
business and the loxry maintenance charges in every
asseasnaent year. The maintanance charges woikld be
nearly double than the receipt of hixgg
from this it is not possible for any
that whether: the lorries were>~ma.;gn.1.T_j; that
businasss of assessee and 3.1: I
its business and that th_é’=.__a.s.sassee. fl_g*at:t3Lng
xexgpslar income by sending u’is::>’r.*:.ji.es bite basis.
In the absence prv”_:>pe;r.l. “~-zmtzéztzial, man the
Coxxmzassionex cf and the
“15:-.=.¥§.~,_ finding stating that the
.1.o:r:r:£.esx7wez.*eV by the asseasee and that
tha a_ssesa’ee” éxztitled for deduction at 40%,
Elie .acce;Ste–:%—-«by us and such a findang has to
115 as pexverse since the same is
wifixcfiiit V a:”iY– basis .
considering the order passed by the
“‘¢c;:sx:_:’::$.’;f.@a;5:Lonc.-2..=: of Income—$’a.x (Appeals) and the
t3f.%.bunaJ., we are of the opimmn that their findings
axe arrazneoua and perverse and not based on proper
material available on record. In the
circumstances, we have to set aside the fin-tiings of
the Cc:«nm:i.s.s1:;.mer of Inccxme-iI’ax (Appeals}…..§aj:a.’:”w§é=;§;3,i ._a;a
the tribunal and remand the matter to tfia atS#sain§t
affine: for fa.-ash conaidexatamnm-s1n};:e _. .t_1A1’e-‘._a,s;s-3ezs:iA.ngi’.
officex has mac not consici:é~.;é§i_T
to be considered by but O£C9%F théi
depreciaticm allow.’-able. attsefigegii at 40%.
Since there are my given by the
asseessee before us, ..=m.§ that the
matter has assessing officer
to enablei. ptfipduce relevant recoxas
lmrry :”:L_g : for ibusiness and that there was
sub.-stant;i.’a;3.V * j.11;:om_e’~~– from such transportaizxon
._ busifiesfi anfi éfitltlad for éepreaiatlon at 40%.
,.f?:; V”t~r:é=5ult, this appeal is allawed without
azmyféxing ‘ ” question of law fraxned 1:1; 6,1;
‘x_;yrmnano1’iv.1ig the matter to the assessing officer for
f}_’.’fi.”zr.V’e:}s5′.i2. consideration as stated supra.
9
sal-
Iudge
Sd/-
31130808 Judge